> In my more folksy moments, I have said that we're aiming for a > situation in which the "IETF's administration is under ISOC's wing" > rather than one in which the "IETF is a wing of ISOC". I like that way of thinking about it > The critical point, though, is that the community needs to converge > on what it wants to happen *before* this document is called done I agree two things along that line 1/ if there is anything that people feel needs to be very specific there someone should consult with experts who work in the specific area (accounts, IPR rules, etc) before the document is "done" 2/ in all cases the principal of what the IETF wants should be specifically stated - i.e. a reader should not have to guess what the IETF wants by looking at the mechanism and trying to reverse engineer to see what the mechanism was trying to ensure see the begining of the rewrite of the paragraph I included in my longer posting for a cut at trying to do that Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf